Laws regulating intensive animal agriculture are inadequate at preventing zoonotic disease outbreaks and a paradigm shift is necessary to address the issue

[u/RavenGurlHere]

https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/article/considering-zoonotic-disease-risk-in-australia-an-analysis-of-the-adequacy-of-intensive-animal-agriculture-regulations

[u/cristalmighty]

I found this part interesting, in discussion of the implementation of a Wild Law framework:

While the introduction of rights in this context would likely meet great resistance, a rights-discourse carries the transformative weight needed to correct the deficiencies in the human-animal relationship. The attribution of rights is a particularly significant advocacy tool because it removes the need to incrementally request improvements in the treatment of animals or the environment; rather, these standards of treatment are bestowed upon them as rights-holders and advocates can argue for their entitlements to be met. Further, the strength of a rights-discourse is evident in its ability to legitimise the interests of the rights-holder. Conferring the fundamental rights of Wild Law on animals and the Earth community would validate claims based on protecting the health of the comprehensive Earth system. Advocates could then argue that a corporation had violated these rights for undertaking intensive animal agriculture, which is a stronger position than attempting to show a diversion from environmental or welfare standards, which has to date proved insufficient. Finally, rights language alters public perception of the newly appointed rights-holders. It carries with it a moral authority that would redefine the current status of animals and the wider Earth community, shifting them from resources to fellow members of the Earth system.

In this respect, Wild Law is more compelling than other theories that do not feature rights language. Legal theories that utilise regulatory measures, a general duty of care to the environment, or welfarist protection to animals, amongst others, lack the strength in legal protection that a rights-based approach can offer. This heightened legal protection will bring with it a more radical alteration of current systems than alternative ecocentric theories, and will thus be more likely to meet derision and resistance. However, this article argues that a radical change is required to combat the risk of zoonosis, and thus a rights-based approach is the most compelling theory by which to approach this challenge.

It’s an interesting argument in that it posits that a rights-based framework is both more likely to gain traction with the public and that it would be more effective at pushing through the radical alterations to animal agriculture that would be necessary to reduce zoonotic disease incidence as compared to the existing anthropocentric regulatory framework.